The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: XaeXae on September 04, 2015, 09:33:48 AM
-
How could the gravitationnal acceleration range between 9.78 m/sē and 9.83 m/sē ?
Four possibilities:
> Earth is round and gravity is true
> Earth is a disc accelerating at different accelerations depending of the position (thus a disc that would easily break)
> Earth is a disc accelerating at the same acceleration everywhere, and the measurable gravitationnal acceleration is the same (implying hundreds of years of measuring errors)
> Earth is a disc accelerating at the same acceleration everywhere, but the measurable gravitationnal acceleration isn't the same (looks self-contradictory)
-
Flat earthers are going to chose the third answer.
-
Flat earthers are going to chose the third answer.
If one of you lives near the equator (measures say that g = 9.78 there) and another around 45° north or south (g = 9.81), two simple chronophotographies could determine if g varies with the latitude. Looks like the experiment could easily be made, and will definitely prove if the third answer could or could not be true.
EXPERIMENT
Definitions : "gravitationnal acceleration" means here the acceleration of the objects towards Earth, either by gravity (round earth theory) or by Earth's acceleration (flat earth theory)
Question : Does gravitational acceleration varies with the latitude ?
Implications : If gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies, the third answer could not be possible, and the modern scientifical measures are confirmed. If it does not, the earth could not be an oblate spheroid as the scientists think it is.
Hypothesis : The scientifical-admitted theory is that, the Earth being an oblate spheroid, gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies.
Experiment : Two persons, one around 45° and one near the equator, will drop regular ping-pong balls from the height of 1.5 meters, and will make a chronophotography.
Data analysis : If the photographical evidence shows a visible difference between the two tests, and we could calculate from this gravitationnal constants compatible with the modern scientific data, we could consider the answer is "Yes". If there is no visible difference between the two chronophotographies, and precision is high enough to determinate there is no difference at a scale of 0.02 m/sē, the answer will be "No".
-
Flat earthers are going to chose the third answer.
If one of you lives near the equator (measures say that g = 9.78 there) and another around 45° north or south (g = 9.81), two simple chronophotographies could determine if g varies with the latitude. Looks like the experiment could easily be made, and will definitely prove if the third answer could or could not be true.
EXPERIMENT
Definitions : "gravitationnal acceleration" means here the acceleration of the objects towards Earth, either by gravity (round earth theory) or by Earth's acceleration (flat earth theory)
Question : Does gravitational acceleration varies with the latitude ?
Implications : If gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies, the third answer could not be possible, and the modern scientifical measures are confirmed. If it does not, the earth could not be an oblate spheroid as the scientists think it is.
Hypothesis : The scientifical-admitted theory is that, the Earth being an oblate spheroid, gravitationnal acceleration effectively varies.
Experiment : Two persons, one around 45° and one near the equator, will drop regular ping-pong balls from the height of 1.5 meters, and will make a chronophotography.
Data analysis : If the photographical evidence shows a visible difference between the two tests, and we could calculate from this gravitationnal constants compatible with the modern scientific data, we could consider the answer is "Yes". If there is no visible difference between the two chronophotographies, and precision is high enough to determinate there is no difference at a scale of 0.02 m/sē, the answer will be "No".
No, way too many variables for the needed level of precision. Apparently, you can measure the acceleration of gravity using pendulums, but you would probably need a vacuum chamber to rule out drag.
-
There are many answers.
For one, the notion of an accelerating Earth seems to be unique to this site, and a handful of very old writings. Many use a notion of density as a fundamental law analogous to gravity, some use a kind of pressure... Further, even under universal acceleration, it could still be possible that gravity exists, albeit in a weaker form: we than have stars and similar bodes who could be exerting gravity, more concentrated at certain points of the Earth's surface: this would throw off measurements.
In addition, some may argue that the variation has not been reliably measured (at least not beyond what error bars and confirmation bias may result in). Whether or not this is feasible, it is still a valid response.
Contradictory evidence may lead to the refinement of a theory, not the end of it.
-
There are many answers.
For one, the notion of an accelerating Earth seems to be unique to this site, and a handful of very old writings. Many use a notion of density as a fundamental law analogous to gravity, some use a kind of pressure... Further, even under universal acceleration, it could still be possible that gravity exists, albeit in a weaker form: we than have stars and similar bodes who could be exerting gravity, more concentrated at certain points of the Earth's surface: this would throw off measurements.
In addition, some may argue that the variation has not been reliably measured (at least not beyond what error bars and confirmation bias may result in). Whether or not this is feasible, it is still a valid response.
Contradictory evidence may lead to the refinement of a theory, not the end of it.
No, the variation has been reliably measured. It's not that hard to do it. All you have to do is use pendulums in vacuum, and see how long it takes them to perform a large amount of oscillations, and count how much time it takes.
Anyway, if universal acceleration isn't what causes things to fall down in a flat earth, what is it?
-
Anyway, if universal acceleration isn't what causes things to fall down in a flat earth, what is it?
I listed two possibilities. Eric Dubay, for example, believes that it is simply a fundamental law: larger densities are drawn downwards. His evidence for this is helium balloons; certainly, it does seem density has an impact, though it is unlikely to be independent. Dubay remains frustratingly evasive on the 'why', though it can be hard to answer 'why' with respect to many questions.
The other is the idea of pressure. This is common to the dome model: it we live within a dome, above us is compressed air. Moving up will have the air exert a force down on us, keeping us on the world's surface. This is actually very similar to what we experience in the RE model: gravity acts on the air. What we would experience in each case is similar. The flaws there are horizontal forces (explainable if the dome is far wider than high, however) and why air concentration reduces so with height (this observation would, though, explain gravity reducing with altitude). Neither is insurmountable: and there is no need for air to be the relevant medium.
Universal acceleration, however, is not fatally flawed. The real question, for me, is what provides the energy for the constant acceleration of such a huge body: varying amounts of gravity are very explainable.
-
There are many answers.
For one, the notion of an accelerating Earth seems to be unique to this site, and a handful of very old writings. Many use a notion of density as a fundamental law analogous to gravity, some use a kind of pressure... Further, even under universal acceleration, it could still be possible that gravity exists, albeit in a weaker form: we than have stars and similar bodes who could be exerting gravity, more concentrated at certain points of the Earth's surface: this would throw off measurements.
In addition, some may argue that the variation has not been reliably measured (at least not beyond what error bars and confirmation bias may result in). Whether or not this is feasible, it is still a valid response.
Contradictory evidence may lead to the refinement of a theory, not the end of it.
1 - Other theories are existing, but they need either gravity, either a new law that would be more or less similar to gravity.
2 - The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
3 - If gravity still exists and could be compatible with observations and experiments, I don't understand why they need to bring out another thing.
4 - The variation was measured with a precision far higher than the variation itself.
5 - I'm just saying that, because of this contradictory evidence, FE needs more developpement than just "earth is accelerating", if we demonstrate acceleration isn't the same everywhere.
-
1 - Other theories are existing, but they need either gravity, either a new law that would be more or less similar to gravity.
2 - The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
3 - If gravity still exists and could be compatible with observations and experiments, I don't understand why they need to bring out another thing.
4 - The variation was measured with a precision far higher than the variation itself.
5 - I'm just saying that, because of this contradictory evidence, FE needs more developpement than just "earth is accelerating", if we demonstrate acceleration isn't the same everywhere.
1. Often they involve gravity being weaker than what is normally said. This is still quite a departure.
2. What the inventors say is rarely that meaningful: if they invented a theory, they predate much development and knowledge.
3. Gravity works in the RE model because that is what it is designed for. It would not explain a flat plane, nor the attraction we have to it.
4. Perhaps: as I said, it is a possible objection, not necessarily a correct one.
5. Of course it does need development: this was what I provided in my post. Acceleration is not the only possibility: and even if it were, many answers exist.
-
Anyway, if universal acceleration isn't what causes things to fall down in a flat earth, what is it?
I listed two possibilities. Eric Dubay, for example, believes that it is simply a fundamental law: larger densities are drawn downwards. His evidence for this is helium balloons; certainly, it does seem density has an impact, though it is unlikely to be independent. Dubay remains frustratingly evasive on the 'why', though it can be hard to answer 'why' with respect to many questions.
The other is the idea of pressure. This is common to the dome model: it we live within a dome, above us is compressed air. Moving up will have the air exert a force down on us, keeping us on the world's surface. This is actually very similar to what we experience in the RE model: gravity acts on the air. What we would experience in each case is similar. The flaws there are horizontal forces (explainable if the dome is far wider than high, however) and why air concentration reduces so with height (this observation would, though, explain gravity reducing with altitude). Neither is insurmountable: and there is no need for air to be the relevant medium.
Universal acceleration, however, is not fatally flawed. The real question, for me, is what provides the energy for the constant acceleration of such a huge body: varying amounts of gravity are very explainable.
Eric Dubay's theory is plain stupid. If it is like that, why doesn't the entire earth fall with us? Why doesn't every celestial body come crashing down? WHY? How come the earth just "happens" to be perfectly perpendicular to this force of density? If density is all that matters, why don't denser instead of more massive things weigh more? Does he not know how buoyancy works?
The atmospheric pressure thing is also fatally wrong. Its supporters don't realize that atmospheric pressure doesn't only push you downwards, but to all directions. It would simply just cancel out. It also doesn't explain why things fall in vacuum.
UA is, from our viewpoint, exactly the same as gravity, but it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, variations in gravitational pull, and it also doesn't have the type of universality gravity has.
-
The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory. Have you never studied science?
-
One of the major flaws with UA is the variation in gravity at different places on earth, there is also a mineral survey technique, that uses micro variations in gravity to locate minerals.
Here is a gravimetric survey. Taken from here http://www.hgiworld.com/methods/gravity/ (http://www.hgiworld.com/methods/gravity/)
(http://www.hgiworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Figure-1-RBA-Gravity-Map1-800x315.jpg)
More info..
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gravimetric+survey+equipment&num=100&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwpGZkbffxwIVYjimCh2oPwzi&biw=1760&bih=886 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gravimetric+survey+equipment&num=100&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwpGZkbffxwIVYjimCh2oPwzi&biw=1760&bih=886)
-
The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory. Have you never studied science?
No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.
-
The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory. Have you never studied science?
No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.
Exactly. The Equivalence Principle equates the phenomenon that you people call "gravity" with a constant acceleration. He then went on to say that you can accelerate forever without breaking any laws of physics. What are you having such a hard time understanding? Special Relativity?
-
The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory. Have you never studied science?
No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.
Exactly. The Equivalence Principle equates the phenomenon that you people call "gravity" with a constant acceleration. He then went on to say that you can accelerate forever without breaking any laws of physics. What are you having such a hard time understanding? Special Relativity?
Einstein also invented general relativity, who explains gravitation. If you admit that all that Einstein said is true, you should also admit general relativity, and therefore gravitation.
And also, Einstein considered the Earth was round and curved the space-time around it (general relativity's explanation of gravitation), not that your "flat earth" was accelerating.
However, if you consider that Earth really accelerates, another question : is there a force that "pushes" the Earth to accelerate it ? If I remember, we have :
F = m a (F is the force, m the mass and a the acceleration)
P = F v = m a v (P is the power and v the speed)
W = F d = m a d (W is the work and d the travelled distance)
Seems like we need a really, really big thing to explain all of this.
-
Einstein also believed in the aether. Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.
-
Einstein also believed in the aether. Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.
Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...
Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.
-
The inventors of this "accelerating Earth" theory explicitely stated that it was the non-gravity solution, and that gravity didn't truly existed.
Albert Einstein "invented" this "accelerating Earth" theory. Have you never studied science?
No, Einstein didn't invent this stupid accelerating flat earth shit idiot, he equated gravity with acceleration.
Exactly. The Equivalence Principle equates the phenomenon that you people call "gravity" with a constant acceleration. He then went on to say that you can accelerate forever without breaking any laws of physics. What are you having such a hard time understanding? Special Relativity?
Does that mean that he invented the idea of an accelerating disk earth? Because that's what you said he did.
-
You still didn't answer my last question, I notice...
-
Einstein also believed in the aether. Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.
Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...
Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.
Really? Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity. Enjoy.
Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.
the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.
The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether
the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.
And my favorite.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.
-
Oh, and this is my favorite quote.
Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it.
-
Einstein also believed in the aether. Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.
Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...
Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.
Really? Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity. Enjoy.
Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.
the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.
The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether
the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.
And my favorite.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.
Here is the whole document, to replace all of your quotes in their context : https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
And the best of all quotes :
The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.
-
Einstein also believed in the aether. Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.
Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...
Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.
Really? Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity. Enjoy.
Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.
the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.
The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether
the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.
And my favorite.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.
Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.
-
Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Once again, you are flat out wrong. Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be.
Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.
-
Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Once again, you are flat out wrong. Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be.
Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.
Quantum theory was around. Quantum electrodynamics weren't.
-
Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Once again, you are flat out wrong. Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be.
Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.
Quantum theory was around. Quantum electrodynamics weren't.
I think that is the first statement you have made in this thread that was not wrong. Congratulations. Maybe you won't be so wrong as often in the future? We can only hope.
-
Yeah, of course he used to believe in an aether. It was the most commonly accepted scientific theory back then. He wasn't in any hurry to pronounce it wrong. I hope you realize that these quotes are from 1920. Einstein was known to be a bit cautious to pronounce scientific beliefs of the past wrong and accept radical theories. It's also before the formulation of quantum electrodynamics and other quantum theories that explain the behavior of light. Relativity does not need aether. The Michelson and Morley experiment disproves the existence of a luminiferous aether. I know some physicists still consider aether something that would be useful in explaining some aspects of quantum theory, but in a much different sense than what was thought to be true in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Once again, you are flat out wrong. Quantum theory has been around since 1900, and Einstein was fully aware of the theory, much more than you seem to be.
Einstein, followed by Debye, applied quantum principles to the motion of atoms, explaining the specific heat anomaly.
Quantum theory was around. Quantum electrodynamics weren't.
I think that is the first statement you have made in this thread that was not wrong. Congratulations. Maybe you won't be so wrong as often in the future? We can only hope.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Congratulations for actually understanding something.
-
Looks like that no flat-earther is answering to my objections... ::)
-
Einstein also believed in the aether. Personally, I believe Einstein was a flat Earther, but could not admit to it or he would have lost his credibility with the satanic, I mean scientific, community.
Oh my god, you're completely illiterate...
Aether was commonly accepted by scientists BEFORE Einstein. Einstein DISPROVED aether and replaced it with his theory of relativity, based on experiments like the Michelson and Morley experiment, that took into account the effects of the rotation and revolution of the earth! Gravity is also very important in general relativity. Yeah. Definitely looks like he was a flat earther and believed in aether.
Really? Here are some quotes from Albert Einstein's address from 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden entitled, Ether and The Theory of Relativity. Enjoy.
Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether.
the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields.
The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether
the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.
And my favorite.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear.
Here is the whole document, to replace all of your quotes in their context : https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
And the best of all quotes :
The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.
Jroa is really good at posting things out of context. He's done that numerous times in the past.
-
What was out of context? Read the entire address, if you would like, and you will plainly see that Einstein was trying to bridge Relativity with Aether theory.
-
What was out of context? Read the entire address, if you would like, and you will plainly see that Einstein was trying to bridge Relativity with Aether theory.
He wasn't trying to bridge anything. He was simply saying that the hypothesis of an aether would be useful for explaining things that, at the time, weren't able to be explained, and proposed the idea of an aether combined with the theory of general relativity. But what's more interesting is this: "The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events." Does that seem to you like what you have in your mind as "aether"? The "aether" most flat earthers refer to does have kinematical and mechanical qualities. Also, I've read that in the period of 1919-1920, he made two attempts to modify general relativity, and were later found to be wrong, and he admitted it. I'm pretty sure this was one of them. It wouldn't be the first time he was wrong. He considered his proposition of a "cosmological constant" his greatest blunder. Oh yeah. And there are quotes like this: "The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.".
-
Eric Dubay's theory is plain stupid. If it is like that, why doesn't the entire earth fall with us? Why doesn't every celestial body come crashing down? WHY? How come the earth just "happens" to be perfectly perpendicular to this force of density? If density is all that matters, why don't denser instead of more massive things weigh more? Does he not know how buoyancy works?
The atmospheric pressure thing is also fatally wrong. Its supporters don't realize that atmospheric pressure doesn't only push you downwards, but to all directions. It would simply just cancel out. It also doesn't explain why things fall in vacuum.
UA is, from our viewpoint, exactly the same as gravity, but it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, variations in gravitational pull, and it also doesn't have the type of universality gravity has.
I am not defending those models: my point is simply that there are alternatives. Just because you may pose a (possibly) unanswered question, does not mean it is unanaswerable.
UA could happily coexist with some theory of gravity: I have said this several times before. Just because the Earth is accelerating does not mean mass does nto exert a pull: this would allow for stellar gravitation, the Cavendish experiment answering the variations in gravity.
-
What was out of context? Read the entire address, if you would like, and you will plainly see that Einstein was trying to bridge Relativity with Aether theory.
He wasn't trying to bridge anything. He was simply saying that the hypothesis of an aether would be useful for explaining things that, at the time, weren't able to be explained, and proposed the idea of an aether combined with the theory of general relativity. But what's more interesting is this: "The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events." Does that seem to you like what you have in your mind as "aether"? The "aether" most flat earthers refer to does have kinematical and mechanical qualities. Also, I've read that in the period of 1919-1920, he made two attempts to modify general relativity, and were later found to be wrong, and he admitted it. I'm pretty sure this was one of them. It wouldn't be the first time he was wrong. He considered his proposition of a "cosmological constant" his greatest blunder. Oh yeah. And there are quotes like this: "The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.".
Tesla also believed in the Aether. Do I need to post a bunch of his quotes as well? Or, maybe you just think you are smarter than both Einstein and Tesla? Are you calling them ignorant idiots? Do you know so much more about physics than the man who invented Relativity and the man who invented Three Phase Electricity? You really are arrogant, are you not?
-
Eric Dubay's theory is plain stupid. If it is like that, why doesn't the entire earth fall with us? Why doesn't every celestial body come crashing down? WHY? How come the earth just "happens" to be perfectly perpendicular to this force of density? If density is all that matters, why don't denser instead of more massive things weigh more? Does he not know how buoyancy works?
The atmospheric pressure thing is also fatally wrong. Its supporters don't realize that atmospheric pressure doesn't only push you downwards, but to all directions. It would simply just cancel out. It also doesn't explain why things fall in vacuum.
UA is, from our viewpoint, exactly the same as gravity, but it doesn't explain the Cavendish experiment, variations in gravitational pull, and it also doesn't have the type of universality gravity has.
I am not defending those models: my point is simply that there are alternatives. Just because you may pose a (possibly) unanswered question, does not mean it is unanaswerable.
UA could happily coexist with some theory of gravity: I have said this several times before. Just because the Earth is accelerating does not mean mass does nto exert a pull: this would allow for stellar gravitation, the Cavendish experiment answering the variations in gravity.
The Cavendish experiment was to measure the value of the gravitational constant, as well as proving gravity, so gravity can't be much weaker than what has been measured by it, and, if it isn't much weaker, well, we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. It would also be unable to explain the orbits of the moons, the planets, etc. I fail to see how a coexistence of UA with gravity would do anything.
-
The Cavendish experiment was to measure the value of the gravitational constant, as well as proving gravity, so gravity can't be much weaker than what has been measured by it, and, if it isn't much weaker, well, we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. It would also be unable to explain the orbits of the moons, the planets, etc. I fail to see how a coexistence of UA with gravity would do anything.
Gravity could well be weaker: there could be more at play on Earth than in vacuum, for example. Science is really so clear cut as you propose.
Gravity also only works to explain orbits on a RE: there are no such orbits on FE. And it only explains orbits by assumption: assuming a RE, it can be blamed.
I have explains how the coexistence of UA and gravity helps several times. Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts. The stars would exert a minor gravitational pull on the Earth, thus causing (for example) higher altitudes to have less measurable gravity.
You have questions, yes: that does not make them unanaswerable. Personally I do not favor UA for the energy required for constant acceleration. However, the fact you can ask a lot of questions about how the model works means nothing: if we rewound a few centuries, you wouldn't be able to explain the origin, movements or position of the planets, nor would you be able to say why we stay on the Earth's surface. RE theory has had more time to develop, that's all.
-
The Cavendish experiment was to measure the value of the gravitational constant, as well as proving gravity, so gravity can't be much weaker than what has been measured by it, and, if it isn't much weaker, well, we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. It would also be unable to explain the orbits of the moons, the planets, etc. I fail to see how a coexistence of UA with gravity would do anything.
Gravity could well be weaker: there could be more at play on Earth than in vacuum, for example. Science is really so clear cut as you propose.
Gravity also only works to explain orbits on a RE: there are no such orbits on FE. And it only explains orbits by assumption: assuming a RE, it can be blamed.
I have explains how the coexistence of UA and gravity helps several times. Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts. The stars would exert a minor gravitational pull on the Earth, thus causing (for example) higher altitudes to have less measurable gravity.
You have questions, yes: that does not make them unanaswerable. Personally I do not favor UA for the energy required for constant acceleration. However, the fact you can ask a lot of questions about how the model works means nothing: if we rewound a few centuries, you wouldn't be able to explain the origin, movements or position of the planets, nor would you be able to say why we stay on the Earth's surface. RE theory has had more time to develop, that's all.
There are many reasons why that wouldn't work, and many inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force. You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.
-
There are many reasons why that wouldn't work, and many inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force. You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.
-
There are many reasons why that wouldn't work, and many inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force. You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.
It's... A quote... ?
-
There are many reasons why that wouldn't work without refinement, and many possible inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force subject to certain variables such as geographical location, kinds of materials, strength of surrounding gravitational field... You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model assuming that the variables that it is near-impossible to remove have no effect, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.
Bold added to make your post scientific. This is a crucial point: science does not deal in absolutes, and the fact so many people act as though it does is downright dangerous. Every experiment is based on trying to remove as many variables as possible; and even then it fails.
For example, there is some evidence that gravity could be 'chained', that bodies in a line might exert more force than would be expected: similar to what we'd expect if we imagined space literally curving. This is the Allais effect: certainly, there are many interpretations of the repeated experiments, and it's also possible that the effect itself is just a result of imperfect instrumentation. This is the point: many variables, beyond those under study, will always be involved.
Apologies for the duplicate, it posted without me meaning to.
-
There are many reasons why that wouldn't work without refinement, and many possible inconsistencies, but I really don't want to go into it right now. I'm gonna leave you with that: the Cavendish experiment doesn't only prove gravity, but it also measures its force subject to certain variables such as geographical location, kinds of materials, strength of surrounding gravitational field... You would have to deny this experiment if you wanted to support your model assuming that the variables that it is near-impossible to remove have no effect, and I know this isn't your intention, as it is an experiment that has been conducted many times.
Bold added to make your post scientific. This is a crucial point: science does not deal in absolutes, and the fact so many people act as though it does is downright dangerous. Every experiment is based on trying to remove as many variables as possible; and even then it fails.
For example, there is some evidence that gravity could be 'chained', that bodies in a line might exert more force than would be expected: similar to what we'd expect if we imagined space literally curving. This is the Allais effect: certainly, there are many interpretations of the repeated experiments, and it's also possible that the effect itself is just a result of imperfect instrumentation. This is the point: many variables, beyond those under study, will always be involved.
Apologies for the duplicate, it posted without me meaning to.
No, the Cavendish experiment measures the force of gravity between heavy balls. It's got nothing to do with the location, and, in the most accurate experiments, all the other variables you mentioned have been accounted for. It's not impossible to remove the variables. It's relatively easy. All you have to do is make sure that it is reasonably far away from any changing source of gravity. Cavendish wasn't even in the room where the apparatus was. He observed it using a telescope, so that his own mass won't affect it in the slightest. If gravity was as weak as you say, it wouldn't explain the trajectories of the planets that we would observe both in a round and a flat earth. The Cavendish experiment would actually be impossible to perform, as the gravitational attraction of the balls would be near non existent. There are many inconsistencies with your model, which I'm not going to address right now, and the amount of "refinement" that would be needed is... Well... Let's just say that you would need something that is completely different. You also have to take into account the Occam's razor. I mean, if you're going to substitute every known law of the universe for something completely different, why don't you just say that the earth is flat, but even if you go to space and take a photo of its curvature, it's not proof that it's round, because there is some sort of law that makes it appear like it's round? Why not just say that it's a law that the earth must be flat?
-
If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion
Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity.
Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense. Most of the UA theory is shillery.
-
If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion
Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity.
Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense. Most of the UA theory is shillery.
The UA nonsense has the least gaping holes of all the other flat earther theories trying to explain gravity.
-
No, the Cavendish experiment measures the force of gravity between heavy balls. It's got nothing to do with the location,
Correct. This does not mean location was not a variable.
and, in the most accurate experiments, all the other variables you mentioned have been accounted for. It's not impossible to remove the variables. It's relatively easy. All you have to do is make sure that it is reasonably far away from any changing source of gravity. Cavendish wasn't even in the room where the apparatus was. He observed it using a telescope, so that his own mass won't affect it in the slightest.
Did he perform it in intergalactic space, away from the gravitational field of the Earth?
Again, I am not saying UA or the weak-gravity etc model are accurate: I'm saying it is premature to reject them utterly, beyond all hope of refinement, when responses may always be found.
There are many inconsistencies with your model, which I'm not going to address right now, and the amount of "refinement" that would be needed is... Well... Let's just say that you would need something that is completely different.
It's not my model. My model is still in development; I am simply examining all possibilities. I do not favor UA in the slightest, as I have said numerous times.
A claim is not fact. You do not know evry possible refinement, you can not simply state that there is no reasonable application of it.
You also have to take into account the Occam's razor. I mean, if you're going to substitute every known law of the universe for something completely different, why don't you just say that the earth is flat, but even if you go to space and take a photo of its curvature, it's not proof that it's round, because there is some sort of law that makes it appear like it's round? Why not just say that it's a law that the earth must be flat?
Aside from your rather absurdly extreme case, there is a difference between replacing and substituting. If I came up with a model which replaced every law of the universe in a way that was fully supported by observations, and which explained everything, and required one less assumption, this would be preferred by Occam's Razor.
The key point of Occam's Razor is 'all else being equal'. You don't start applying it from the status quo: of course such a model would depart greatly from what's currently accepted. That doesn't mean there is nothing else that could explain both modern and ancient observations and results: to make such a claim is unscientific. Science fully allows for old theories to be replaced.
-
No, the Cavendish experiment measures the force of gravity between heavy balls. It's got nothing to do with the location,
Correct. This does not mean location was not a variable.
and, in the most accurate experiments, all the other variables you mentioned have been accounted for. It's not impossible to remove the variables. It's relatively easy. All you have to do is make sure that it is reasonably far away from any changing source of gravity. Cavendish wasn't even in the room where the apparatus was. He observed it using a telescope, so that his own mass won't affect it in the slightest.
Did he perform it in intergalactic space, away from the gravitational field of the Earth?
Again, I am not saying UA or the weak-gravity etc model are accurate: I'm saying it is premature to reject them utterly, beyond all hope of refinement, when responses may always be found.
There are many inconsistencies with your model, which I'm not going to address right now, and the amount of "refinement" that would be needed is... Well... Let's just say that you would need something that is completely different.
It's not my model. My model is still in development; I am simply examining all possibilities. I do not favor UA in the slightest, as I have said numerous times.
A claim is not fact. You do not know evry possible refinement, you can not simply state that there is no reasonable application of it.
You also have to take into account the Occam's razor. I mean, if you're going to substitute every known law of the universe for something completely different, why don't you just say that the earth is flat, but even if you go to space and take a photo of its curvature, it's not proof that it's round, because there is some sort of law that makes it appear like it's round? Why not just say that it's a law that the earth must be flat?
Aside from your rather absurdly extreme case, there is a difference between replacing and substituting. If I came up with a model which replaced every law of the universe in a way that was fully supported by observations, and which explained everything, and required one less assumption, this would be preferred by Occam's Razor.
The key point of Occam's Razor is 'all else being equal'. You don't start applying it from the status quo: of course such a model would depart greatly from what's currently accepted. That doesn't mean there is nothing else that could explain both modern and ancient observations and results: to make such a claim is unscientific. Science fully allows for old theories to be replaced.
I have absolutely no idea why you think location would be a variable. There is no reason to perform it in gravity free space, because the only attraction in the experiment that matters is the one from the weights. The earth's gravitational field has nothing to do with it, because we all know it pulls us downwards, and not sidewards. The Cavendish experiment measures the sidewards force.
And you are right. If you managed to create such a model, it would be preferred. But I find it extremely unlikely, to the point that it is practically impossible. But I can't say anything more, since I can't debate a model that doesn't even exist. Right now though, your claims about gravity are completely wrong and do not agree with the observations. If I were you, instead of trying to find how strong gravity is, I would attempt to completely change the equations describing gravity, so that it's pull diminishes more rapidly with distance, and see if it would explain the orbits of the planets and the results of the Cavendish experiment. I find it highly unlikely that you will find a way to do it though.
I personally think what you're doing is a waste of time. We already have a model that agrees with observations and doesn't do many assumptions. It would be better if you tried to improve on it. But... You can do as you wish.
-
I have absolutely no idea why you think location would be a variable. There is no reason to perform it in gravity free space, because the only attraction in the experiment that matters is the one from the weights. The earth's gravitational field has nothing to do with it, because we all know it pulls us downwards, and not sidewards. The Cavendish experiment measures the sidewards force.
That's what the current model suggests, yes: it may not be accurate. Perhaps sources of gravity interfere with one another: after all, they bend space. If those bends overlap, it seems likely there could be some behavior not directly expected. (Magnetic fields are a good analogy: two magnets close by alter the fields between them).
And you are right. If you managed to create such a model, it would be preferred. But I find it extremely unlikely, to the point that it is practically impossible.
What is the basis upon which you make this claim? It's fine if you favor the current model, but what is impossible is to claim you can judge every possible alternative.
It is only scientific to oppose the existing model. If it can be improved upon, so much the better.
-
Oh, and this is my favorite quote.
Common sense is what tells us the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it.
For once I agree, that's my favourite quote as well, it means absolutely nothing, because it can be taken both ways, the usual meaning is a refutation of common sense, the other meaning is confirmation of common sense.
Perfection.
-
I have absolutely no idea why you think location would be a variable. There is no reason to perform it in gravity free space, because the only attraction in the experiment that matters is the one from the weights. The earth's gravitational field has nothing to do with it, because we all know it pulls us downwards, and not sidewards. The Cavendish experiment measures the sidewards force.
That's what the current model suggests, yes: it may not be accurate. Perhaps sources of gravity interfere with one another: after all, they bend space. If those bends overlap, it seems likely there could be some behavior not directly expected. (Magnetic fields are a good analogy: two magnets close by alter the fields between them).
And you are right. If you managed to create such a model, it would be preferred. But I find it extremely unlikely, to the point that it is practically impossible.
What is the basis upon which you make this claim? It's fine if you favor the current model, but what is impossible is to claim you can judge every possible alternative.
It is only scientific to oppose the existing model. If it can be improved upon, so much the better.
The current model does suggest that those bends overlap, and it's the reason why gravity always points to the center of mass. If you examine the Cavendish experiment, you would see that local gravitational influence is of no importance. With the room being significantly large, the distance between the apparatus and any other gravitational influence is so large that... Well... It doesn't even matter in the slightest. If you're going to claim that gravity is strong enough for those influences to matter, then it would be STRONGER than what is supported by the current model, and we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. Besides, the experiment is tested both clockwise AND counterclockwise.
-
If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion
Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity.
Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense. Most of the UA theory is shillery.
The UA nonsense has the least gaping holes of all the other flat earther theories trying to explain gravity.
Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity.
Note to honest, honorable and intelligent folks: Pay VERY close attention to how many shills talk about UA nonsense and other things upon which flat earth theory does not depend. Only the shills feed nonsense discussions.
-
If all of the flat earth is accelerating, thus providing gravity illusion
Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity.
Not all flat earthers believe in the UA nonsense. Most of the UA theory is shillery.
The UA nonsense has the least gaping holes of all the other flat earther theories trying to explain gravity.
Flat earth theory does not hinge on explaining the illusion of gravity.
Note to honest, honorable and intelligent folks: Pay VERY close attention to how many shills talk about UA nonsense and other things upon which flat earth theory does not depend. Only the shills feed nonsense discussions.
First of all, I'm not a shill. Second, if UA isn't what causes things to fall down on a flat earth, what is it? Is it the ridiculous "theory" by sceptimatic that makes no sense on too many levels?
-
The current model does suggest that those bends overlap, and it's the reason why gravity always points to the center of mass. If you examine the Cavendish experiment, you would see that local gravitational influence is of no importance. With the room being significantly large, the distance between the apparatus and any other gravitational influence is so large that... Well... It doesn't even matter in the slightest. If you're going to claim that gravity is strong enough for those influences to matter, then it would be STRONGER than what is supported by the current model, and we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. Besides, the experiment is tested both clockwise AND counterclockwise.
I meant overlap in the sense that magnetic fields overlap: interference.
None of that seems to even begin to address my contention that the gravitational field of the Earth would further encourage the gravitational fields of the balls observed. Clockwise or counter-clockwise, it would hold. After all, as I have had to say several times, the experiment took place well within the Earth's gravitational field: the distance between the balls and the Earth is most definitely not too large.
To be honest, I'm starting to piece together more of a theory, and UA has no part of it.
-
The current model does suggest that those bends overlap, and it's the reason why gravity always points to the center of mass. If you examine the Cavendish experiment, you would see that local gravitational influence is of no importance. With the room being significantly large, the distance between the apparatus and any other gravitational influence is so large that... Well... It doesn't even matter in the slightest. If you're going to claim that gravity is strong enough for those influences to matter, then it would be STRONGER than what is supported by the current model, and we all know how it would end up for a flat earth. Besides, the experiment is tested both clockwise AND counterclockwise.
I meant overlap in the sense that magnetic fields overlap: interference.
None of that seems to even begin to address my contention that the gravitational field of the Earth would further encourage the gravitational fields of the balls observed. Clockwise or counter-clockwise, it would hold. After all, as I have had to say several times, the experiment took place well within the Earth's gravitational field: the distance between the balls and the Earth is most definitely not too large.
To be honest, I'm starting to piece together more of a theory, and UA has no part of it.
You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.
Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.
-
You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.
Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.
The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.
Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.
-
You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.
Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.
The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.
Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.
First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.
I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
-
You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.
Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.
The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.
Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.
First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.
I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
Why do you insist that the Earth is not a dipole? Because it is flat?
-
First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.
I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
That only holds if this is an exactly mimicked principle rather than analogy.
Even so, I gave an example of how gravity could serve as a dipole under a UA model, and further we could even have magnetic field lines 'carrying' gravity: so while gravity will be unidirectional, it will be scattered as though it was not.
I have no doubt you could firmly rebut one possible model: it would not follow that every possible model is defeated.
-
You are misinterpreting what I say. No, the distance from the earth isn't large, but we know that the pull from the gravity of earth points downwards, with everything else either cancelling out or having too tiny an influence, because it simply is too far away or too small. Don't forget that if you move two times further away from the center of attraction, the attraction will get four times weaker. With the downwards acceleration having been dealt with by hanging the weights, the only important source of acceleration is the heavy balls that attract the weights.
Now when you talk about "interference", you mean like the patterns present in magnet field lines? Because you forget an important detail: magnets are dipoles. That's what's causing the shape of these field lines. A monopole wouldn't present these patterns. As you know, we don't have gravity that repels. It would make little sense. So the idea of "interfering" gravitational fields is, the way you present it, wrong.
The pull of the Earth is downwards, but that still wouldn't preclude interference. Resorting to the magnet example again, if you line two magnets up vertically, you'll see even some horizontal lines are affected. Besides, comparatively little of the gravity exerted by the balls would be strictly horizontal.
Gravity that repels is actually an existing theoretical concept, though I will concede it hasn't been observed.
Currently I'm theorizing that there is a connection between the fundamental forces, so there could well be a gravitational field analogous to the magnetic field, even if only one gravitational 'pole' is observed. Still, this is speculation.
Don't forget that we wouldn't be working on an exact RE model. Perhaps gravity is a dipole and the repulsive gravity is what causes UA: if nothing else, it's neat. Just handwave everything on the Earth's surface as being primarily attractive and you've got a system that's coherent, at first glance.
First of all, as I have explained, the only reason why what you say happens with magnets us because they are dipoles. I will explain how it happens with a diagram later.
I also feel like I'm not making myself understood when I'm explaining to you my points on gravity. I will explain them to you with a diagram, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
Why do you insist that the Earth is not a dipole? Because it is flat?
What are you even talking about?